You mean, make it easier to buy an election. Without neighborhood elections, you
don't have to pander to us lowly citizens, you can just buy millions of
dollars of ad space, and let that do you talking. It literally silences the
voice of the many. There is a reason the LDS Church supports and endorses the
Caucuses."Precinct caucuses are the most fundamental grassroots
level of political involvement."-LDS Newsroom-
I wish when people submitted an opinion they actually had facts to back up what
they say. Truthfully there is no evidence to suggest that an open primary would
increase turnout. Truthfully there is evidence to suggest that an open primary
would likely leave people less engaged as they are less connected and less
courted and informed by candidates through personal meetings. Now
that being said, the Republican party and the Democratic party could benefit
from a higher threshold to avoid a primary. but this ballot initiative is short
sighted, If count my vote really cared about voter participation they would
focus on getting people out to caucuses for both parties. That way they can
truly participate and share opinion and influence the process at the local
level. Primaries don't allow for that at all, which will likely lead to
less intelligence and less participation among the voting populace.
In caucuses you are not supposed to just pick a complete stranger you know
nothing about to be your delegate, just because he says he will vote for
candidate A or B. You should know almost everyone in the room. They are your
neighbors. Surely you know one or two who you can trust their judgment. You
pick them. And if they don't win... another trust worthy person will
probably win. You have to trust your neighbors. Why would your neighbors
pick somebody who doesn't represent the values of the majority in the
neighborhood?I know... the "radical" red herring...But... if the majority of your neighbors pick "radical" delegates...
then maybe they know what they are doing. If nobody else in the room or the
neighborhood are selecting the delegates you want... maybe YOU are the radical
element in the group (not them).It's like the lady who calls
her husband to warn him about a driver going the wrong way on the freeway she
saw on TV, and he says, "I know... EVERYBODY is driving the wrong
way"!You kinda have to know and trust your neighbors for the
caucus system to work.
To stuff and others--notice that my last sentence started with a big maybe. I
respect and appreciate your comment and do not consider it a farce. You have
some well thought out opinions as do others on your side. I felt that I wanted
to support Mr. Ferguson for also offering his opinion with some good points on
the other side. I have not made up my mind on this and also am interested in
those who would want to adjust the caucus-convention system. For me that is
also worthy of consideration.Sometimes these comment boards seem
like some caucus meetings where differing opinions are ridiculed and run down.
And yet there are still many nice, respectful people at the caucus meetings and
the comment boards--appreciate them so much!
ijw,You disappointment that people would not say who they would vote for
is a problem with your understanding of what the caucus is about.Delegates are not supposed to have their minds made up before they even go to
the Convention and talk to the candidates (as you expected).Delegates are not supposed to just tell you who they will vote for.
That's not how it works. 2012 was strange because it was almost a
one-issue caucus (Hatch). But that's not what caucuses are SUPPOSED to
be. Try going to another one. They usually aren't like that.Delegates are supposed to tell you what they are looking for in a candidate
and what issues are important to them (not just tell you who they will vote
for). If you pick a delegate just because they will vote for/against Hatch...
how do you know how they will vote on the dozens and dozens of other issues and
candidates that will come up for a vote at the Convention.You
don't just give them your list of WHO you want them to vote for and send
them to not listen but just vote your list.
What a farce to think that another election will result in higher citizen
participation. The ONLY thing an election will result in is higher
costs to hold the election, more time consumed (and wasted) for all volunteers
and employees involved in the actual election, less grass-roots level
involvement from the beginning to the end of the process, and greater costs to
every candidate. The real winners are 1) the candidates who figure
out how to dine and travel off their contributed campaign dollars, 2) those who
buy a candidate via 1st, 2nd and 3rd-hand campaign contributions or other sleazy
means, and 3) the media who reap the campaign dollars. Utah should
stick with the tried-and-true caucus system that has already proven its worth in
gold, so to speak. There's nothing like allowing any citizen the chance to
participate on local, county and state meetings like these. Love it!
I agree with Robert. I too am an independent who has mostly voted Republican.
I have gone to many caucus meetings. The one we had in 2012 was great as a
social event but not so much politically. Most people running for delegate
refused to say who they would vote for as they wanted to get to know the
candidates first. That makes sense in many ways, but they never got back to us
to get our opinions at all. Many of us were frustrated. The caucus system
does have some strengths but I am leaning more and more toward some kind of
change. Many say the primaries will just help those with big money, but I am
also tired of a certain few having all the power in the caucus no matter how
many people we get out.Maybe more people would vote if they could have a
say in who the candidates are for the final election.
To "Robert Ferguson" we don't need higher voter turnout. We need
more informed people to vote. Going to an open primary system turns thing from
representatives getting to know the canidates into a system where the politician
with the most money can win a popularity contest.
MaverickThat's why I hate the Iowa caucusus. No control over
who votes. You might remember, it was Hillary who was projected to win Iowa by
several points, but Obama and his people bused in thousands of Acorn peoole to
overwhelm the caucus and that launched Obama to the White House. In my mind a
political system than can be overrun, as happened here in Utah, with the
Bennett/Lee thing and in Iowa, really is a bad and easily manipulated system.
Robert,Can you explain with some sort of logic to back it up... how doing
away with caucuses would magically increase enthusiasm and primary turnout?I'd really be interested in hearing your logic behind that
assumption.Currently we have terrible turnout for primaries.
I'm wondering how just doing away with the caucuses would fix that.
If you look at the history of primaries in elections. An all primary election
system would not increase voter participation. It has actually had devistating
effects on voter participation.
All you need to know about the caucus system:We the people wanted
Bob Bennett. We got Mike Lee. If that doesn't condemn
this insane system I don't know what will.
The argumentative defense of any proposition is inversely proportional to the
truth contained.It's mostly about control and power and wanting
to keep it, where it is.
We already have a "bypass" system, filing as an unaffiliated candidate.
A candidate can go straight to the general election ballot. Someone who
doesn't think they can win if vetted by average citizens asking one on one
questions can still run and spend their money. Why should they be a political
party nominee if they are going to bypass their political party?At
only one time for 10 years in Utah’s history did the state depart from the
Neighborhood Election, Caucus and Convention System. In 1937, a powerful
democratic state senator convinced enough of the legislature to switch to an
open primary. He had had two losses, a US Senate race and also for governor,
because the majority of the convention delegates disagreed with his legislative
voting record. But he was well known and had money.Many at the time
felt like an open primary was his ticket to the governorship, and he did win.
But the change in the system only lasted for a decade. After public and media
disillusionment, and even worse voter turnout, Utah restored the Caucus and
Convention System. Why go back?
Take a look at voting percentages the last time Utah tried the open primary. How
well did that work this year as well?Our current problem with voter
turnout is it has not kept up with the population increases. The voter turnout
keeps going up but not as fast as the population. Some of that is the younger
voters, where Utah has a larger percentage of them and they aren't, as a
group, as involved. We need to educate those moving in and not understanding our
system.Many citizens who attend their neighborhood elections and
caucus meeting become interested in politics and get involved in their
communities, the state and the nation. They meet and help candidates become
elected. Some then later become candidates. This should be encouraged through
education.The system and the experience attending the meetings can
always be improved, but the “Count My Vote” initiative isn't
the way to do it. Any changes to the system the political parties use to
determine their nominees should be determined by the political parties.